The Kat Von D Lawsuit – An Artist’s Perspective on Envy, Malice, and the Fight for Tattoo Art

Fuelling Tomorrow Wiith Erika Armstrong.

As a 'small-fry' tattoo artist, slinging ink at the cripsied kritter end of the planet—Australia, to be precise. "Where the sun shines brightly, high melanin content in the skin’s pigmentation makes greywash the most prominent tattoo style.With over 25 years in the game across two countries, I’ve tattooed everything from Iron Maiden album covers to Metallica’s ninja star (at least 20 times, no less), full Marvel and Star Wars sleeves, and even Disney characters. "

It’s what we do: we take a client’s passion, a 2D image, and transform it into a 3D masterpiece on skin that moves, breathes, and varies with texture, pigmentation, and genetics.

We charge for the transference—the skill, the sterile environment, the hours of labour—not the image itself.

It’s transferable fan art, a tribute, not a knock-off. Yet, here we are, watching Kat Von D, one of our industry’s brightest stars, get dragged through the courts over a single Miles Davis tattoo. And I can’t help but think: if a 'non-famous' artist like myself had done that tattoo, the photographer suing her would’ve probably liked it, maybe even reposted it and that is it. So why is Kat in the crosshairs?

I’ll tell you why—jealousy, plain and simple. And it’s a disgrace that one artist would do this to another.

Tattoo Art the Transferance of Fan Art, Not Reproduction.

Tattooing isn’t reproduction—it’s transformation. When I ink a Metallica ninja star or a Black Widow-inspired Marvel sleeve (shoutout to my own brand), I’m not photocopying someone’s work. I’m reinterpreting it on a living canvas, factoring in skin’s quirks and the client’s vision.

We charge for the transference—the hours, the precision, the sterile setup—not the image. Clients ask for fan art because it’s personal, a tribute to what they love. I’ve done many popular genred tattoos, No one’s suing me, because it’s understood: this is fan art, not a factory churning out bootleg merch.

Yet Sedlik’s lawsuit treats Kat’s tattoo like a mass-produced product. It’s nonsense. Tattoos are one-offs, etched into one person’s skin, never to be replicated. When we post our work, it’s to show our style, our execution. That’s what gets the next job—not the fact that it’s a Miles Davis portrait or a Lady Gaga album cover. The well-done execution is the draw. Sedlik’s claim that Kat’s Instagram posts (with 85,000 likes) were “commercial” is a stretch. Every artist posts their work to attract clients—it’s how we survive. If that’s infringement, then every tattooist sharing a superhero or band logo is at risk.

The Double Standard: Big Business vs. Small Artists

The kicker? Big corporations get away with far worse. Here in Australia, walk into Big W, and you’ll see Metallica, Slayer, and Nirvana logos on T-shirts, mugs, and posters. I’d wager they don’t have licensing deals for every design, yet they’re raking in profits.

Meanwhile, a tattoo artist charges $60 for a one-time logo tattoo and faces a lawsuit? It’s a double standard. Retailers mass-produce fan art for profit, but small-fry artists like me—or even high-profile ones like Kat—get targeted for bespoke work that’s purely about the craft.

Sedlik’s not suing Big W for their unlicensed Nirvana tees. He’s going after Kat because her name makes headlines.

A Framework to Protect Tattoo Artists

This case is a wake-up call. Artists need to unite and create a framework to protect our rights. Tattoo art should be legally recognized as fan art, distinct from reproduction, and shielded from copyright lawsuits when it’s a one-off piece requested by a client.

Here’s what that framework could look like:

1. Define Tattoo Art as Fan Art: Legally classify tattoos as transformative works under fair use, emphasizing the creative process of transferring a 2D image onto a 3D, living canvas.

2. Protect the Transference: Clarify that tattoo artists charge for their time, skill, and execution, not the image itself. A $240 tattoo isn’t profiting off someone’s copyright—it’s payment for labor.

3. Exempt Social Media Sharing: Posting a tattoo online to showcase style shouldn’t be deemed “commercial use.” It’s promotion of our craft-the execution, not the original image.

4. Limit Liability for One-Offs: Tattoos are singular creations, not mass-produced goods. Copyright law should reflect this distinction, protecting artists from claims over bespoke work at the request of clients.

5. Unite the Industry: Form a global coalition—call it the Artists Alliance—to advocate for these protections. We need a unified voice to push back against predatory lawsuits.

If Sedlik’s appeal succeeds, it could set a precedent that endangers every artist who’s ever inked a band logo or a movie character. From Brisbane to Berlin, we’d all be looking over our shoulders.

That’s why I’m standing with Kat. Her fight is our fight!

He’s not protecting his work; he’s trying to profit off her success and defame her (a typical Jelous tactic).

Dear Kat Von D,

Every one of us has lived through that same unspoken truth… tattooing stories no one ever dares to question.

Until you start doing too well.

Then it turns ugly. The jealous ones crawl out, spinning fake stories about being hurt — not because you did anything wrong, but because they can’t stand to see you build a life they never had the guts to chase.

They don’t just come for your art. They come for your name. Your reputation. And in your case — your money too.

Your fight in this Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg lawsuit isn’t just yours—it’s all of ours!

-Erika